Apparently, the Germans are not comfortable with using the Brandenburg Gate as a backdrop for campaigning
.
IMHO, it is not appropriate for any of the candidates to try and “stage campaign” events overseas. After all the Germans are not voting in the U.S. presidential elections.

What are your views?

Haggis

07-10-2008, 08:00 PM

Seems to me, it's up to the Germans.

Cranky

07-10-2008, 08:08 PM

I'm with Haggis.

I'm also of the mind that it's really bizarre to have a "campaign event/speech/whatchawannacallit" overseas. He's campaigning for President of the United States, not President of the World.

I don't care too much what the opinion is of the Germans about our presidential candidates. They don't have a say in who our President is, any more than we decide who their Chancellor is. Argh.

Robert Toy

07-10-2008, 08:16 PM

Obama is trying to upgrade his international bona fides.

Cranky

07-10-2008, 08:25 PM

It'll take more than a good speech to do that, imo.

donroc

07-10-2008, 08:30 PM

Will he speak German as he has advised us to learn the languages when we travel?

Haggis

07-10-2008, 08:34 PM

Obama is trying to upgrade his international bona fides.

I expect he's trying to channel the ghosts of a couple of dead, charismatic presidents who got great sound bites in Germany--Reagan and JFK. As a speaker, he's in their mold. Politically, not so much. But it's not a bad strategy.

Don

07-10-2008, 08:38 PM

I'm with Haggis.

I'm also of the mind that it's really bizarre to have a "campaign event/speech/whatchawannacallit" overseas. He's campaigning for President of the United States, not President of the World.

Are you really sure of that? :D

Robert Toy

07-10-2008, 08:38 PM

Will he speak German as he has advised us to learn the languages when we travel?
"Ich bin ein Berliner, und ich komme in Frieden."

Cranky

07-10-2008, 08:39 PM

Are you really sure of that? :D

Hush, you! :roll:

ETA: Although Chris Martin sure seems to think Obama is...

robeiae

07-10-2008, 08:45 PM

He should wander the beaches of Normandy, then spontaneously build a make-shift shrine for the fallen from some stones he finds.

I think it would work.

Robert Toy

07-10-2008, 08:52 PM

*Sunset, walking barefoot at the water’s edge, bagpipes playing softly in the background* Yup, that’s what we need spontaneity.

Haggis

07-10-2008, 08:53 PM

*Sunset, walking barefoot at the water’s edge, bagpipes playing softly in the background* Yup, that’s what we need spontaneity.

Better yet, wait 'til the tide's in and walk on the water.

brianm

07-10-2008, 08:53 PM

IMO, the majority of campaign events are staged, especially those that are on foreign soil. I can understand why Obama would want to speak in front of the Brandenburg Gate, especially if his speech is about peace and reunification of the world. That said, I think he should choose a less controversial location. The gate does symbolize peace but it also has links to some of Germany’s darkest hours. It made sense for Reagan to speak there, but I don’t think it’s a good choice for Obama. On the other hand, if he speaks from City Hall there are sure to be negative comments about his ‘belief’ that he is the next JFK.

The opinions of other countries about America's presidential nominees are very important, IMO, as America's leadership affects many more people than just those at home. America's reputation is suffering worldwide and the next president has his hands full reinstating that reputation and reassuring the world that she still strives for the dream that is America. Many people of the world, including my family in N. Ireland, are not assured she still strives for that dream.

Robert Toy

07-10-2008, 08:57 PM

Better yet, wait 'til the tide's in and walk on the water.
I like that...:D

InfinityGoddess

07-10-2008, 09:18 PM

The opinions of other countries about America's presidential nominees are very important, IMO, as America's leadership affects many more people than just those at home. America's reputation is suffering worldwide and the next president has his hands full reinstating that reputation and reassuring the world that she still strives for the dream that is America. Many people of the world, including my family in N. Ireland, are not assured she still strives for that dream.

I agree with this.

Cranky

07-10-2008, 09:29 PM

Do they care what we think of them, however? Beyond assuming we'd like to bomb half the world and sell Cokes and Nikes to the other half?

Seriously, I don't give a crap anymore. If they move here, become a citizen, and vote in our elections, then I might care. You know why I don't care? Because no matter what we do, someone is going to be pissed about it.

So we may as well chart our own course. Naturally, we should try to get along with other nations, but not kowtow to them. I'd rather they didn't kowtow to us, either. Cooperate as needed, but otherwise...pffftt.

None of this will come to pass, of course, but that's my personal opinion. I'm not running for President of anything or anywhere.

Robert Toy

07-10-2008, 09:31 PM

Do they care what we think of them, however? Beyond assuming we'd like to bomb half the world and sell Cokes and Nikes to the other half?

Seriously, I don't give a crap anymore. If they move here, become a citizen, and vote in our elections, then I might care. You know why I don't care? Because no matter what we do, someone is going to be pissed about it.

So we may as well chart our own course. Naturally, we should try to get along with other nations, but not kowtow to them. I'd rather they didn't kowtow to us, either. Cooperate as needed, but otherwise...pffftt.

None of this will come to pass, of course, but that's my personal opinion. I'm not running for President of anything or anywhere.
I'd vote for ya...:D

clintl

07-10-2008, 09:34 PM

I really don't understand the big complaint about presidential candidates making speeches during overseas visits. In my recollection, it's not all that unusual, nor has it been criticized in the past.

The only controversy here on the German side seems to be the venue, and it seems to be a uniquely German concern over which the main players in Germany don't agree among themselves (Merkel being against it, and the Mayor of Berlin being for it and having the final decision). Let Obama and the Germans figure this one out.

But I think it's ridiculous to be criticizing the candidates for making speeches on foreign soil. I certainly would not be offended if Merkel came over here and gave a speech during the next German elections.

Plus, there are a lot of Americans living in Germany at any given time.

Robert Toy

07-10-2008, 09:37 PM

I really don't understand the big complaint about presidential candidates making speeches during overseas visits. In my recollection, it's not all that unusual, nor has it been criticized in the past.

Staged political campaign speeches, name one?

donroc

07-10-2008, 09:39 PM

Do they care what we think of them, however? Beyond assuming we'd like to bomb half the world and sell Cokes and Nikes to the other half?

Seriously, I don't give a crap anymore. If they move here, become a citizen, and vote in our elections, then I might care. You know why I don't care? Because no matter what we do, someone is going to be pissed about it.

So we may as well chart our own course. Naturally, we should try to get along with other nations, but not kowtow to them. I'd rather they didn't kowtow to us, either. Cooperate as needed, but otherwise...pffftt.

None of this will come to pass, of course, but that's my personal opinion. I'm not running for President of anything or anywhere.

The complaints of foreign socialist leaning media and their non-productive intelligentia (a class this country has avoided until now)should be viewed irrelevant by our policy makers.

Cranky

07-10-2008, 09:40 PM

ETA: I knew I should've quoted clint! Sorry, clint. :)

Sure enough. So why not go to Ramstein or wherever and make a speech there?

As for the rest, it's certainly up to the Germans to decide whether or not his plan to give a speech there is appropriate or not, and give the thumbs up or down.

clintl

07-10-2008, 09:42 PM

Staged political campaign speeches, name one?

Sure.

John McCain in Canada last month.

http://www.citynews.ca/news/news_24025.aspx

And there was not a single word of criticism here about it.

Robert Toy

07-10-2008, 09:46 PM

Sure.

John McCain in Canada last month.

http://www.citynews.ca/news/news_24025.aspx

And there was not a single word of criticism here about it.

You missed one little point...“The reputation of the Economic Club as a place for serious discussion of policy is well known in America, and I am honored by your invitation.”

Cranky

07-10-2008, 09:48 PM

So, in light of clint's last post, I read the linked article he provided, and re-read the OP article.

The mayor has given his stamp of approval to Obama's visit, and apparently, it's up to him whether or not the speech-giving would be appropriate. He believes it is, so that's the end of that, imo.

As for McCain, he was apparently there by invitation of the Economic Club of Canada, to talk about NAFTA, amongst other things. Both of these speeches were by apparent invitation, so it's not a big deal, imo.

My opinion on whether or not it does any good is irrelevant to the process...

clintl

07-10-2008, 09:52 PM

You missed one little point...“The reputation of the Economic Club as a place for serious discussion of policy is well known in America, and I am honored by your invitation.”

You don't honestly believe that McCain didn't pursue the invitation, do you? It was every bit the staged political campaign speech that Obama's speech will be. I guarantee you that absent the invitation, McCain would have found another venue to make his speech.

And I'm not concerned by either. All of their overseas trips between now and the election are staged political campaign events (whether or not they give formal speeches), and there's nothing wrong with that.

blacbird

07-10-2008, 10:25 PM

IMHO, it is not appropriate for any of the candidates to try and “stage campaign” events overseas. After all the Germans are not voting in the U.S. presidential elections.

What are your views?

Yeah. Like John McCain's sojourn through the Baghdad market in a flak jacket with thirty press cameras rolling wasn't a "campaign event".

caw

Robert Toy

07-10-2008, 10:26 PM

I find it mildly amusing that a few die-hard Obama supporters, rather than addressing an issue about Obama directly, are quick to reply with “Well X did it too” or “At least he not as bad as Y”.

It would be nice to see one not go into an automatic attack/comparison mode reply.

Just saying.

MattW

07-10-2008, 10:39 PM

I'd like to say it here first - Obama will try to tack on a leg where he visits Iraq or Afghanistan. Germany is only a likely excuse.

If he's going overseas, he'd better make a point of going there. It will be staged and calculated for sure, and only released after he's left, but if I were running his campaign, it's what I would do.

Robert Toy

07-10-2008, 10:41 PM

I'd like to say it here first - Obama will try to tack on a leg where he visits Iraq or Afghanistan. Germany is only a likely excuse.

If he's going overseas, he'd better make a point of going there. It will be staged and calculated for sure, and only released after he's left, but if I were running his campaign, it's what I would do.
He will be there...;)

blacbird

07-10-2008, 10:49 PM

All of their overseas trips between now and the election are staged political campaign events (whether or not they give formal speeches), and there's nothing wrong with that.

Exactly.

It will be staged and calculated for sure, and only released after he's left, but if I were running his campaign, it's what I would do.

And exactly.

Every breath Obama and McCain take from now till Nov. 3 or whatever the voting date is will be a "campaign event". That's the way it has been since the Kennedy-Nixon 1960 race, the first real TV campaign for President. I see no basis for criticism of either one of them for doing such things. It's like getting annoyed at one baseball team (but not the other) in a game because their batters always run to first base when the hit the ball.

caw

AncientEagle

07-10-2008, 10:50 PM

I'd like to say it here first - Obama will try to tack on a leg where he visits Iraq or Afghanistan. Germany is only a likely excuse.

If he's going overseas, he'd better make a point of going there. It will be staged and calculated for sure, and only released after he's left, but if I were running his campaign, it's what I would do.

He long ago announced that he would be visiting both. I don't think he needs Germany as an excuse. I would assume both candidates will be visiting Iraq and Afghanistan at least once before the election. I certainly would.

Robert Toy

07-10-2008, 11:12 PM

Exactly.

And exactly.

Every breath Obama and McCain take from now till Nov. 3 or whatever the voting date is will be a "campaign event". That's the way it has been since the Kennedy-Nixon 1960 race, the first real TV campaign for President. I see no basis for criticism of either one of them for doing such things. It's like getting annoyed at one baseball team (but not the other) in a game because their batters always run to first base when the hit the ball.

caw
Or blaming the sportscaster

brianm

07-10-2008, 11:22 PM

Both ( http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=92103248) nominees are planning visits overseas for obvious reasons. McCain has already visited the UK and while he was in London, he held a fundraiser. That’s pretty much a staged event, no?

The current president was scheduled to visit foreign countries during his 2000 campaign, but all trips were cancelled because, it is presumed, his campaign was afraid he would make foreign-policy gaffes ( http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2000/apr/20/uselections2000.usa) during his visits. You may recall he was unable to name the leaders of four hot spot countries during a rather famous interview. ( http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/11/05/bush.popquiz/)

One of these two men will be the next president, it makes sense to me that they would visit foreign allies during the campaign season.

Robert Toy

07-10-2008, 11:26 PM

Both (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=92103248) nominees are planning visits overseas for obvious reasons. McCain has already visited the UK and while he was in London, he held a fundraiser. That’s pretty much a staged event, no?

The current president was scheduled to visit foreign countries during his 2000 campaign, but all trips were cancelled because, it is presumed, his campaign was afraid he would make foreign-policy gaffes (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2000/apr/20/uselections2000.usa) during his visits. You may recall he was unable to name the leaders of four hot spot countries during a rather famous interview. (http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/11/05/bush.popquiz/)

One of these two men will be the next president, it makes sense to me that they would visit foreign allies during the campaign season.
The last sentence alone would have been sufficient.

First two are jabs.

mscelina

07-10-2008, 11:45 PM

Oh for Pete's sake.

The rhetorical impact of speaking before the Brandenburg Gate is a calculated move on the part of the Obama campaign. OF COURSE IT IS. It's what he does well--staging a rhetorical event in lieu of a meaningful campaign speech. He's banking on the lingering breaths of those who spoke there before him to lend foreign policy credibility to his campaign. *shrug* It won't work, but you gotta give it to his campaign--they're certainly trying to substitute dramatics for substance at the moment.

Think about it: accepting the nomination in Mile-High stadium, banking off the saleability of the "I have a dream" anniversary? Making a speech in front of the Brandenburg Gate, a symbol for many of the end of Nazi power? You don't just accidentally fall into those occurrences, folks; it's the result of a studied plan to replace the issues of the campaign with a made-for-television docudrama about the rise of Barack Obama. If he'd been so concerned about the real events, the meat-and-potatoes issues of the Presidential campaign, he'd have had the balls to meet McCain in those town hall meetings--unless, of course, the Rev. Jesse Jackson had actually managed to castrate him first.

Whether you're an Obama fan or not, the implications of rhetorical strategy are there to be analyzed. Now, whether it turns out to be a successful ploy is still up in the air. He may pull it off. But he's setting a high standard for himself to stand in the glow of Reagan, Kennedy, and Martin Luther King and eventually he's going to have to get over the 'event' mentality and relate to American voters on a one-to-one basis.

Just my opinion, naturally. *shrug*

blacbird

07-10-2008, 11:51 PM

The last sentence alone would have been sufficient.

First two are jabs.

Your OP was a jab, Robert.

caw

Robert Toy

07-11-2008, 12:02 AM

Your OP was a jab, Robert.

caw
I beg to differ with you, the OP is a linked report, and my opinion...which clearly states "...any candidate..."

brianm

07-11-2008, 01:14 AM

The last sentence alone would have been sufficient.

First two are jabs.

The first link (of three) indicates both nominees are using the international stage for political gain, which was in response to your posting this comment.

Obama is trying to upgrade his international bona fides.

And this…

Staged political campaign speeches, name one?

Clearly both candidates are “trying to upgrade” their international bona fides with staged political campaign speeches overseas. Whether a nominee is invited by a country or not has no bearing on whether the speeches are for political gain.

As for the other two links, they explain why in recent years there have been no overseas visits by presidential nominees. It wasn’t a jab, it was an explanation. If I were to google nominees prior to 1992, I’m confident I could find links to confirm they too used the same political strategy and visited foreign allies during their campaigns.

If you weren’t ‘jabbing’ at Senator Obama, why not link to Senator McCain’s trips as well, since you stated this.

IMHO, it is not appropriate for any of the candidates to try and “stage campaign” events overseas.

By only linking to Obama, it gives the impression that you do not consider Senator McCain’s overseas trips to be of the same nature. IMO, you are incorrect.

clintl

07-11-2008, 01:27 AM

I find it mildly amusing that a few die-hard Obama supporters, rather than addressing an issue about Obama directly, are quick to reply with “Well X did it too” or “At least he not as bad as Y”.

It would be nice to see one not go into an automatic attack/comparison mode reply.

Just saying.

You're the one that asked for the name of another candidate who gave a campaign speech on foreign soil, and I gave you a name. It happens to be the name of Obama's opponent. And you're the one that tried to claim that it wasn't as bad as Obama's plans. And I said a) it's the same thing, and b) I don't think there's anything wrong with what either them have done in this respect.

How you logically get from the chain of events to the post I quoted above, I'm not sure. I mean, you're the one who asked for it.

MattW

07-11-2008, 01:29 AM

I honestly don't care that Obama is giving international speeches. I question the relevance of Germany as a destination. Who is he impressing? Ze Germans?

Robert Toy

07-11-2008, 01:34 AM

The first link (of three) indicates both nominees are using the international stage for political gain, which was in response to your posting this comment.

And this…

Clearly both candidates are “trying to upgrade” their international bona fides with staged political campaign speeches overseas. Whether a nominee is invited by a country or not has no bearing on whether the speeches are for political gain.

As for the other two links, they explain why in recent years there have been no overseas visits by presidential nominees. It wasn’t a jab, it was an explanation. If I were to google nominees prior to 1992, I’m confident I could find links to confirm they too used the same political strategy and visited foreign allies during their campaigns.

If you weren’t ‘jabbing’ at Senator Obama, why not link to Senator McCain’s trips as well, since you stated this.

By only linking to Obama, it gives the impression that you do not consider Senator McCain’s overseas trips to be of the same nature. IMO, you are incorrect.
I would/will on McCain when a news agency reports a story that I can link to.

Robert Toy

07-11-2008, 01:35 AM

You're the one that asked for the name of another candidate who gave a campaign speech on foreign soil, and I gave you a name. It happens to be the name of Obama's opponent. And you're the one that tried to claim that it wasn't as bad as Obama's plans. And I said a) it's the same thing, and b) I don't think there's anything wrong with what either them have done in this respect.

How you logically get from the chain of events to the post I quoted above, I'm not sure. I mean, you're the one who asked for it.
My post was in relpy to another post...I did not raise it.

Robert Toy

07-11-2008, 01:37 AM

I honestly don't care that Obama is giving international speeches. I question the relevance of Germany as a destination. Who is he impressing? Ze Germans?
Beats me.

clintl

07-11-2008, 01:43 AM

My post was in relpy to another post...I did not raise it.

So you're complaining that I raised the point that what Obama's doing is not unusual, and yet he's being criticized for doing something that it is not unusual for presidential candidates to do?

I think that's a very fair point to raise. After all, the premise of the OP is that Obama is doing something unsavory and unethical, and he unequivocally is not. He is acting with well-established standards of campaigning. If you don't like the symbolism, that's a personal matter. But he's not doing anything wrong.

Robert Toy

07-11-2008, 01:44 AM

So you're complaining that I raised the point that what Obama's doing is not unusual, and yet he's being criticized for doing something that it is not unusual for presidential candidates to do?

I think that's a very fair point to raise. After all, the premise of the OP is that Obama is doing something unsavory and unethical, and he unequivocally is not. He is acting with well-established standards of campaigning. If you don't like the symbolism, that's a personal matter. But he's not doing anything wrong.
Okay

brianm

07-11-2008, 02:30 AM

I would/will on McCain when a news agency reports a story that I can link to.

Might it have something to do with maintaining strategic military installations (http://www.globemaster.de/germanybases.html) in Germany?
:D Now that's a real stretch...you can't honest believe that Obama or McCain visit to Germany could have any bearing on maintaining strategic military installations in Germany.

brianm

07-11-2008, 02:50 AM

:D Now that's a real stretch...you can't honest believe that Obama or McCain visit to Germany could have any bearing on maintaining strategic military installations in Germany.

I guess I have to reference all of the posts in the future.

I honestly don't care that Obama is giving international speeches. I question the relevance of Germany as a destination. Who is he impressing? Ze Germans?

Beats me.

Yes, the German people who might one day decide the don't care to have American military installations in their country anymore. Highly unlikely, but still a possibility.

Robert Toy

07-11-2008, 02:53 AM

I guess I have to reference all of the posts in the future.

Yes, the German people who might one day decide the don't care to have American military installations in their country anymore. Highly unlikely, but still a possibility.
NATO

brianm

07-11-2008, 03:14 AM

NATO

France, 1967.

Robert Toy

07-11-2008, 03:18 AM

France, 1995
France, 2008

This is fun!

Williebee

07-11-2008, 03:36 AM

Wait a sec, folks. Time out.

There are a couple of significant assumptions being made in this thread. First is both state and implied, that Obama's trip is a campaign jaunt, only, and not a legitimate foreign relations trip by a man who, even if he isn't the next President, will still have risen to a position as a serious "player in the game". This one is minor, as was rightfully pointed out, everything these two people, and their political teams, do from now to November is a campaign event, whether stated or just because of the situation.

The second assumption is the one that amuses me. Chancellor Merkel, according to the article,

"...has voiced great skepticism about whether it's appropriate for Obama to speak at the Brandenburg Gate if he travels to Berlin."

Has ANYBODY said, independently, that he was even thinking of going to the Brandenburg Gate? She implies it, maybe.

It's like "Wag the Dog" --

DeNiro: Well, if the President is going to Seattle, it can't possibly be about the B-3 bomber program.

Reporter: What B-3 bomber program?

DeNiro: Did I say there was a B-3 bomber program? I said it couldn't possibly be about the B-3 bomber program.

Robert Toy

07-11-2008, 03:38 AM

Wait a sec, folks. Time out.

There are a couple of significant assumptions being made in this thread. First is both state and implied, that Obama's trip is a campaign jaunt, only, and not a legitimate foreign relations trip by a man who, even if he isn't the next President, will still have risen to a position as a serious "player in the game". This one is minor, as was rightfully pointed out, everything these two people, and their political teams, do from now to November is a campaign event, whether stated or just because of the situation.

The second assumption is the one that amuses me. Chancellor Merkel, according to the article,

Has ANYBODY said, independently, that he was even thinking of going to the Brandenburg Gate? She implies it, maybe.

It's like "Wag the Dog" --

DeNiro: Well, if the President is going to Seattle, it can't possibly be about the B-3 bomber program.

Reporter: What B-3 bomber program?

DeNiro: Did I say there was a B-3 bomber program? I said it couldn't possibly be about the B-3 bomber program.
My bold

Obama's staff had requested the venue for his visit.

Williebee

07-11-2008, 03:43 AM

I went looking for that while I was typing it, but haven't found a link to that yet. (Not doubting you, just haven't found it yet.)

It wouldn't surprise me, but everything I've seen in the news has come from after Chancellor Merkel's statement.

How about this? He DOESN'T go to Berlin, and the Mayor goes international with a story about how much tourism and other related money that the Chancellor cost the city?

Robert Toy

07-11-2008, 03:46 AM

I went looking for that while I was typing it, but haven't found a link to that yet. (Not doubting you, just haven't found it yet.)

It wouldn't surprise me, but everything I've seen in the news has come from after Chancellor Merkel's statement.

How about this? He DOESN'T go to Berlin, and the Mayor goes international with a story about how much tourism and other related money that the Chancellor cost the city?

Rather long but worth reading

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,565080,00.html

ETA: "Obama's advisors may also have been taken aback for an altogether different reason. His strategists had hoped that Merkel would take the choice of Berlin and the Brandenburg Gate for the speech as a compliment.

Obama's advisors currently view Merkel as the most influential politician in Europe. They perceive French President Nicolas Sarkozy as playing an important role, but he hasn't been in office as long as Merkel. For his part, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown is stuck in a domestic crisis. According to British press reports, the Democratic presidential hopeful will just make a brief visit in London.

brianm

07-11-2008, 05:13 PM

France, 1995
France, 2008

This is fun!

And these dates have what exactly to do with the removal of American military installations from French soil in 1967?

Robert, my point by answering your one word answer of NATO with France, 1967 was to demonstrate that things change in the world. One day France is all happy with America, the next she isn't. The same thing could happen in Germany. Thus, one of the reasons it is important we care what other nations think about us and why Germany would be a location presidential nominees would visit during their campaigns.

LimeyDawg

07-11-2008, 05:38 PM

Honestly, the consensus in Europe is that most of them don't like America, and by extension, Americans. Don't believe me? Take a trip. I think that anything the next couple of presidents can do to improve this nation in the eyes of the world is a positive step.

Oh, and we've already closed a significant number of bases in Europe, most of them after the fall of the Berlin Wall. The problem for us now is that we are opening US military installations in Eastern European countries, right on Russia's doorstep.

Robert Toy

07-11-2008, 06:01 PM

And these dates have what exactly to do with the removal of American military installations from French soil in 1967?

Robert, my point by answering your one word answer of NATO with France, 1967 was to demonstrate that things change in the world. One day France is all happy with America, the next she isn't. The same thing could happen in Germany. Thus, one of the reasons it is important we care what other nations think about us and why Germany would be a location presidential nominees would visit during their campaigns.
Just for historical grins...NATO member changes mind.
1995 - France rejoins NATO Military Committee, but not Military Command
2008 - France rejoined Military Command, while maintaining an independent nuclear deterrent.

The president, let alone presidential nominees, does not have the power to decide foreign basing.

The days of the U.S. placing bases in Europe are over. Two reasons, the cold war is over, second the weapons technology today eliminates the requirement to have bases in close proximity of an adversary. Oh a third, they don't like us having bases on their land.

Williebee

07-11-2008, 06:19 PM

second the weapons technology today eliminates the requirement to have bases in close proximity of an adversary.

Wasn't there something in the 9/11 commission report about a lack of ground intel being found to be a significant problem for the US? Bases in the area are a key to supporting that kind of intelligence operation.

Robert Toy

07-11-2008, 06:22 PM

Wasn't there something in the 9/11 commission report about a lack of ground intel being found to be a significant problem for the US? Bases in the area are a key to supporting that kind of intelligence operation.
That's what embassy personnel are for...;)

ETA: With all of our bases in Germany...why didn't we find out about all the pre 9/11 plotting and funding going on in Germany?

LimeyDawg

07-11-2008, 06:39 PM

That's what embassy personnel are for...;)

ETA: With all of our bases in Germany...why didn't we find out about all the pre 9/11 plotting and funding going on in Germany?
Because we have a phenomenal military, but only a JV intelligence apparatus.

Robert Toy

07-11-2008, 06:43 PM

Because we have a phenomenal military, but only a JV intelligence apparatus.
Operating in a foreign country, a JV is the best that you can expect.

donroc

07-11-2008, 06:45 PM

That's what embassy personnel are for...;)

ETA: With all of our bases in Germany...why didn't we find out about all the pre 9/11 plotting and funding going on in Germany?

Perhaps Sandy berger knows why.

Robert Toy

07-11-2008, 06:48 PM

Perhaps Sandy berger knows why.
Do we have to check his pants?

LimeyDawg

07-11-2008, 07:00 PM

Well, just to salve your ire a little, it isn't the fault of the people in the intel community, it's the fault of our need for politicos to run everything. Still, they missed 9/11. How many times have we been embarrassed by people giving nuclear intel to the Chinese or Pakistanis? I understand, too, that perhaps their successes don't make the papers, so I'm willing to change my stance here if someone can provide me with examples of our Intel community's successes.